Knollenberg Should Denounce Lennox As Radical Activist

Silly rabbit (4.00 / 3)

"It's OK If You're A Republican!"

They never will look at their own behavior. Ever.

And since they have no plans to help this state/country except to "stay the course" with their failed president and his failed foreign and domestic policies, they are going to attack everything and anyone that they can to try to divert the public's attention from the fact that they suck.

Expect more of this throughout the year.  

---

by: wizardkitten @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 11:25:24 AM CST

Two words... (4.00 / 3)

Double standard.  The term was invented to describe the actions of Republicans.  

---

by: Kathy @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 12:28:33 PM CST

Lennox interview on his "expulsion hearing." (4.00 / 3)

http://www.thecurrentpodcast.c...

---

by: bfealk @ Wed Feb 27, 2008 at 14:21:38 PM CST

Tired of hearing about MoveOn.... (0.00 / 0)

Most of us are on their mailing lists.  Doesn't mean we're acting on their behalf.

A voice in my head tells me not to be so mean to the conservatives.  I work very hard to ignore that voice.

---

by: djtyg @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 00:03:42 AM CST

I'll condemn some of Lennox's actions, but not his overall participation in the process (4.00 / 1)

First, I've been told that "commentary from a conservative" (though I despise such labels when used to divide debate) here is no longer forbidden as a blanket rule (although "conservative commentary" might be), although I may have misinterpreted that part of a conversation.  If I'm unwelcome, send me a note and I'll voluntarily desist.  My reading of the policy is that you don't want "conversative v. progressive" debate here - I'll try my best to honor that keep my comments fact-based, non-partisan, or even in the spirit of progressivism (one might recall the original "Progressive" movement of the early 1900s as including Teddy Roosevelt, and holding to universally accepted principles like suffrage and equality, something I believe almost all Americans find some consensus on).  I've covered both of these characters in such detail (I'm one of the few bloggers living in the district) that I can't resist sharing some specific points.

To begin, I'll condemn some of Dennis Lennox's actions, but I'm not condemning the whole of his political participation (I'd say the same about Bruce Fealk - I respect his participation and vigor, but I stick to specific actions when offering a critique). Specifically, I think Lennox is young and inexperienced socially (Fealk is twice his age, an important difference), and he's certainly been too abrasive at times.  I recall in October 2006 being a speaker at a panel at CMU on the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative.  Lennox was counter-protesting BAMN and others outdoors, and the photo that ended up in the student paper had him pointing and yelling (back) at them. Not a good image to convey, not necessary, nor appropriate socially.  I did my best throughout that campaign to keep our side in particular, but hoped for some reciprocation, on the path to civility.  But not everything in a campaign can be controlled, and I was a volunteer myself at that point in time (I took on a major state house race earlier in the year and didn't want conflicts to interfere so I turned over my official duties as an officer of MCRI to other folks) and even then it simply wasn't possible or my place for me to get involved with how others might support or oppose the initiative.  On the other hand, I heard Dennis's words and they were not out of bounds except in the style he presented them.

I'll (socially) condemn two actions Lennox has taken this year (and I've repeatedly noted in my reporting on my blog that Lennox may be abrasive, but the First Amendment is isn't written for people who are loved by everyone). First, trying to videotape Peters after he left his office in the dark and following him to his car.  There is a point where such activity is pointless, socially indecent, and his question wasn't newsworthy.  I'll also condemn his decision to take a FOIA and camera to Dean Pam Gates office, rather than just e-mail it.  On the other hand, Gates grossly over-reacted, and handling FOIA requests, even in person, is not an unheard of thing.  Whether she likes him or not, the right thing to do is to not get upset and try to disarm Lennox with reason. Rather, she attempted to use both the force of her position and real force (the swat).  Having spent years in customer service, the right thing to do is listen and if you can't agree just say nothing.  Gates after all was the public official, and literally the service provider to Lennox, and supposedly many years wiser and more experienced than Lennox.

On the other hand, Lennox's work has revealed some interesting questions about Peter's hiring.  First, it is NOT PRIVATE MONEY that is paying Peters.  The Griffin Endowment was a private donation many years ago to CMU - given long before any specific professor was selected.  It's public money now, and subject to scrutiny.  It was given to a public body so the public body could benefit the public, with no strings as to who was to be hired (and such strings might be illegal for logical reasons).  Universities are supposed to raise this kind of money - but raising it doesn't put the actions it may incidentally be used for beyond public scrutiny (if so, FOIA would be meaningless as bodies would shield sensitive stuff with a private slush fund). Additionally, who categories of incidental resources not seen in budgets facilitate the Peters' position - from a publicly built office-space for Peters, to overhead, to the fact that students are involved and deserve to receive a fair value and the right to scrutinize their public professors. And money is fungible - if it doesn't go to Peters it goes to someone else who might perform the job better or without a built-in ethical dilemma at the start (or simply without the distraction of a full-time race).  It simply doesn't work as an excuse to say the money had a private source at one time.

There is a public (conducted secretly but subject to FOIA, which my work at www.OutsideLansing.com has exposed in more detail than Lennox's only because I'm more experienced) process to select the professor every couple years.  This year, according to a 174 page FOIA I published, a Democratic-leaning professor decided that since the last two professors were Republican that there should be a quota for a Democrat this year, and months before Lennox uttered a word this professor quashed internal dissent against hiring Peters because people knew he was running (ironically some by Dean Pam Gates) by threatening that the department (he was the chair) would have a mini-uprising if Peters wasn't the man.  That evidence of the notes from the selection process raise many questions -- do I believe they are highly important to the race in Oakland County?  No.  But they are important to public bodies and precedent for how they employ people and interact with individuals seeking public office.  It's not important to the Knollenberg-race - it is important to CMU and all government on how they deal with this issue.  I don't believe governments should fire or not hire employees solely because of a run for office, but the rules and guidelines to prevent conflicts, favoritism, and resource blending should be precisely outlined.

I also broke the story using e-mails leaked from an English Dept listserv where professors chattered that he might be a Virginia-Tech-like shooter.  If they believed this, they had an obligation to report it to the police - they didn't, because they didn't have serious reason (other than a hairstyle change they made fun of) or "probable cause" for such a statement.  It was run-of-the-mill slanderous exaggeration - but inappropriate for professors and shows intolerance.  (By the way, you should source that story as having come originally from OutsideLansing and not RM which was just relaying it, and I noted in it that if there was real concern over Lennox's mental health that CMU should, using due process, take appropriate measures to protect the community).

I take exception to the idea Lennox is a "one-issue guy" and Fealk isn't.  Both are pretty focused on the Knollenberg-race - both have done other issues in their respective political camps (Lennox and MCRI, see above, and I've heard he's spoken on several other issues as well).  I see both as pretty similar, you just see more of Fealk's branches because your closer to it.  A review of Lennox on google just with CM-Life would indicate he's been a disliked political figure in Mt. Pleasant for many reasons other than CD-09.

I'm somewhat frightened by the idea you write that "should never be allowed to be near anything sharper than a green bean," although I'm guessing it was just a rhetorical flourish.  I wouldn't prohibit either one of them from using their cameras (or butter knives) in lawful ways ... that is, no "blanket" prohibition, although I would suggest that both social decency and laws dealing with private property, trespass, and privacy are something both should respect so long as those laws are narrowly tailored.

To be consistent, I don't begrudge Fealk the right to participate, and again, I respect his energy and desire.  On the other hand, going to Congressman's home, using stunts like an ice-cream cart on his sidewalk and offering his wife ice-cream after knocking on the door (and using the made up excuse that "I was just offering free ice-cream", in a social situation that never could exist other than as a stunt), is clearly well across the social line.  It is clearly designed to say "We can reach you anywhere, including your home", and to convey a type of intimidation.  Whether illegal or not (that depends on nuances of the law, and also on giving him reasonable warnings), its simply not bad form (and I'd argue not effective or relevant to voters).  Compare going to your opponent's home to following  them from their office to their car (done by two-bit TV reporters across the nation, by the way) --- I think Fealk wins the day on that.

Finally, I don't support Mr. Clark's notion of challenging Peters to denounce Fealk or making a big deal of this arrest in the separate political race (although I don't think its that far out-of-line to ask the question, its just not a meaningful issue to voters and not relevant). Still, I back (as a matter of their limited right to generally control events they pay for, but not necessarily as wise) the Troy club's choice to not allow videotaping at their events (they also prohibited me from taping, and I complied), and I believe Fealk crossed the line in resisting arrest and refusing to comply with a police officers not obviously unlawful request (in what was at best a gray area - its certainly not a clear cut right to videotape in a privately rented space, not one worth "having the guts" to challenge).  There's a difference between "guts" and reasoned courage, between picking good battles and bad ones. Fealk has chosen a very bad field upon which to make this challenge (one which I could have challenged the Troy Democratic Club on for in exactly the same building for refusing to allow me to tape, and they were allowing TV to tape the same event, and they had real candidates for office whereas that wasn't the case here).

Also, as to WizardKitten's assertion, "they never will look at their own behavior," I'm here to proclaim I and others closely examine Republicans at every opportunity (probably more so, because I have more influence in change) and note that Repubs say the same thing about Dems (hey, let's talk about Kwame Kilpatrick).  For example, I strongly condemn the stupidity coming out of, say, the Republican Shiawassee County Sheriff's office, and there are a number of other Republicans I have held and will hold accountable in the appropriate ways and times.  Still, both sides have their own internal battles, there are honest people on both sides trying to hold "their own" accountable and hacks on both sides insisting that stuff be overlooked.  And if you are going to challenge us to condemn Lennox, it would be best if you started with a condemnation of Fealk's behavior.  And indeed, I recall last fall Knollenberg and Peters both being interviewed (at the same time) about the Fealk and Lennox situation by Frank Beckmann and neither candidate was willing to fully condemn the other's nemesis but both expressed a dislike for the general tactics. I suspect that's as much practical as it is a recognition of their rights and that both of these guys, like all human beings, are complicated and present complex issues and neither 100% right or 100% wrong.  It's kind of funny that each of them use the other as a foil and example of the "bad version" of themselves, but neither is 100% right.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 02:28:07 AM CST

Seriously, (0.00 / 0)

The green bean thing was wicked funny.  I giggled like a child for several minutes.  

I have to go to work so I'll write more later.  But my greater point is that political activists should not be hung around a candidate's neck, unless that activist is employed by the campaign.  The same is true for Lennox, who I do not take much interest in, except that I thought it was an appropriate comparison.



If you're not interested in what a sit-downer has to say, it's going to take him twice as long to say it. ~my grandpa

---

by: Christine @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 06:01:49 AM CST

[ Parent ]

It is an appropriate comparison (0.00 / 0)

Christine,
There is no question that Lennox and Fealk are appropriately compared (and there's no contest between who's more over-the-top IMO), and I knew the green bean thing was intended to be funny (and I chuckled a bit) but I was just trying to provide a few facts that I suspected you weren't aware since you haven't followed Lennox closely.

---

by: chetlyzarko @ Thu Feb 28, 2008 at 09:41:45 AM CST

[ Parent ]